Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/05/1984CITY COUNCIL MARCH 5, 1984 AMENDMENT TO MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 1984 Page 3, Item 7, should read: "streets and water." The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, March 5, 1984, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Hugh Marvin, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Paul Farrar, William Peters Member Absent Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Betsy Davis, Samuel Bogorad, Visiting Nurse Assn; Marnie Kneeland, Ethel Schuele, Community Library; Wayne DeForge, SSTA; Audrey Quackenbush, RSVP;David Miller, Barry Carris, Sign Committee; Vee Gordon, The Other Paper; Peter Collins, Merrill Davis, P. Eileen Bradley, Merrill Theatres; William Schuele, David Willis, Nancy DeForge, Funding Request - Special Services TRansportation Agency Wayne DeForge explained that they were growing faster than their resources and had thus reorganized their service. Some vehicles and personnel had been eliminated, and the criteria for transporting persons had been changed. They will be receiving 3 fully equipped vans through a federal subsidy with only a payment of $2,000 each as a token. They are asking for the same budget as last year. He explained they charge $1.25 per trip, and that there is an organization which pays this fee for those who cannot afford it. Comments and questions from the public not related to items on the Agenda There was no discussion. Continue Public Hearing on application of Homer & Marie Dubois for a planned unit development of a parcel of land located off the east side of Hinesburg Rd. approximately 1/2 mile north of VanSicklen Rd. Mr. Farrar advised that documents related to 9B and school approval have been given to the City Manager. He explained that what was needed now was a Finding of Fact that all criteria have been met and also a motion of approval. Mr. Farrar then moved that the City Council find that the proposed development: a) Will not result in undue water or air pollution, as the development will be served by City sewers. b) The development has sufficient water available for the foreseeable needs of the development, as it will be served by City water provided by the Champlain Water District c) It will not cause unreasonable soil erosion, as presented in the plans and as will be presented to the Planning Commission d) It will not cause unreasonable highway congestion. Information presented to the City Council indicated that there was no highway congestion to be expected e) It will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide educational services. A letter from the school system testifies to this. f) It will not cause an unreasonable burden on the City to provide municipal or governmental services. There was no evidence in the record to indicate there are any unusual services to be provided for this development. g) It will not cause undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area. There are no areas within the development which have been designated areas of specific scenic or natural beauty. h) Will provide housing types, costs and characteristics appropriate to the housing needs of various social and economic groups. It has been pointed out that areas where the community is lacking is the availability of single family lots. In the total development, one half the lots to be provided are single family. i) Will provide for convenient allocation and distribution of common open space as was shown in the plan presented j) Will provide efficient lay-out and high-quality installation and construction and maintenance of streets and public facilities and will conform with the City's utility plan. This item will be covered under the final review of the Planning Commission. k) Will provide cooperation with adjoining properties in the extension of roadways, drainage facilities and utility lines. l) Will provide the maximum potential for energy conservation. This item will be covered in the final approval of the Planning Commission. m) Will conform with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. These items have been, or those which have not been will be completed in the final approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Peters seconded the motion which passed 3-1, Ms. Lansing voting against. Mr. Farrar then moved that the South Burlington City Council approve the planned unit development application of Homer and Marie Dubois for a 54 unit single family development and a 53 acre multi-family development as depicted on a plat plan entitled "Ledge Knoll Subdivision" prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 16, 1983, with revisions dated 12/30/83 and 1/18/84, subject to the following stipulations: 1) that approval as granted is for the entire concept with phase I being 57 single family units and phase II being 69 town house units 2) that all existing overhead power be constructed underground, which shall include the removal of all existing power poles 3) that Highland Terrace be extended to Dubois Drive after fifty (50) units are completed within this development 4) That the set-back requirements be established at final plat approval by the Planning Commission; however, those set-backs shall be no less than those set forth within the Residential 2 District 5) that the Planning Commission give serious consideration to closing Highland Terrace at Hinesburg Road if and when this development is connected to the Green Acres development 6) that the housing design be of differing variations within a construction price range of 75 to 85 thousand dollars 7) that bonds for all streets and waters for the single family phase be posted prior to the start of construction 8) that all open space shall be held in common by each of the lot and condominium owners and that the land in these common areas cannot be sold unless all owners approve 9) that any residual development rights for the common land be deeded to the City. Mr. Peters seconded the motion. Ms. Lansing asked how much open space was in the total area. Mr. Farrar said approximately 1/3 of the total land development was agricultural corridor and wooded area. In the vote which followed, the motion passed 3-1, with Ms. Lansing voting against. Mr. Farrar asked Ms. Lansing the nature of her objections to the motions. Ms. Lansing said she did not like the loss of agricultural land and felt they were giving up too much for development. She also didn't like the development so far away from city services. Mr. Farrar noted that the sewer allocation is only for the single family homes. Review Sign Ordinance Committee report and consider amendments to ordinance The findings of the Sign Ordinance Committee were noted (attached). Mr. Miller said they were pleased to have served and that their primary recommendation was not to change but to better enforce the ordinance. Mr. Farrar said he agreed with the recommendations as set forth and that the major consideration was the clarification of the status of non-conforming signs. He felt that those which exist, as long as they exist in their present form, will be taken care of eventually. If those with non-conforming signs could be encouraged to come closer to conformity, it would be a good idea. Discussion was continued until the next meeting when further information from the City Attorney would be available. Ms. Lansing then moved that the Sign Committee be dissolved with thanks for their efforts. Mr. Farrar seconded with unanimous approval. Funding Request - Visiting Nurse Association Betsy Davis introduced Samual Bogorad, South Burlington's new representative on the Board of Directors. Ms. Davis thanked the City for past support and for considering an increase for this year. She noted the increasing aging population, noting that of the 80% increase in services in South Burlington 40% was to those over 75 years of age. They have suffered federal cutbacks and from pressures from hospitals which are releasing patients earlier or not admitting them at all. Critical items include handicapped transportation, the waiting list for homemaker programs. She felt that without added funds, patients will be harmed. Mr. Bogorad cited two instances in which he had observed the work of VNA at close range and had found it a most heartwarming experience. He said he had never been touched so much by anything since he had come to South Burlington... and was equally moved by what VNA could not do because of lack of funding. Mr. Farrar said they would try to weave as reasonable an increase as possible into the budget. He felt it could save money in the long run on insurance premiums. Funding Request - RSVP Audrey Quackenbush noted they are asking for a $500 increase, their first such request in 5 years. They have 561 volunteers in Chittenden County, with 61 in South Burlington. These are placed in such areas as South Burlington Seniors, The Correctional Center, Girl Scouts, Middle School, Orchard School, Senior Companions to the Home Bound, Handicapped Men's Workshop. Despite growing expenses, federal government funding has been level, so they need to reach out to local sources. Sign Highway Mileage Certificate Mr. Szymanski advised that they have to certify the number of miles of roads to the State in order to get continued State aid. The certificate attests to 17.119 miles of State highway, 2.289 miles of Class 1 highway, 17.927 miles of class 2 roads, 33.42 miles of Class 3 roads, and .75 miles of Class 4 roads (dirt roads). Mr. Farrar moved that the City Council sign the Certificate of Mileage as presented by the City Manager. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Charter Changes Mr. Farrar presented his recommendation for a change in the City Charter. He noted that Section 1902 says that the tax rate can be increased by no more than 5% per year, which is the same as the increase in the grand list. Since, in compliance with State requirements, a 100% valuation procedure has been initiated, the automatic tax rate increase language can be removed with the addition of language to insure compliance with the 100% valuation process. He stressed that these two changes are a package and should be so voted on; otherwise the system would be unbalanced. He recommended that the proposed changes be referred to the Charter Committee for hearings and recommendations. Mr. Farrar then moved that the proposed charter changes (attached) be referred to the City Charter Committee. Ms. Lansing seconded. Mr. Peters questioned why the changes were to be effective in 1986. Mr. Farrar explained that the Assessor had indicated it might take that long to establish the machinery for compliance with the 100% valuation process. Mr. Farrar agreed to changing the date to 1985. Mr. Minnich reminded the Council that the cost of this process would be $20,000 which would have to be in this year's budget in order to meet the 1985 date. It was also advised that this item be on the agenda for the upcoming Steering Committee meeting. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. Continue Review of 1984-85 Budget Community Library: Ms. Kneeland and Ms. Schuele noted they no longer have a full-time City employee; that position is covered under Community Aide. They are also no longer getting "incentive grants." It was noted that Springfield spend $24,000 for their public library alone, and South Burlington spent only $14,000 for the public and school library together. A supplemental request for $7,483 is being made for a 1/2 time person, a trained librarian to work on community programs and to be present when Ms. Kneeland is not in order to answer reference questions. They no longer have CETA assistants. The addition of more adults to the community has increased library use substantially. They get no State aid now, although they used to get $12,000, $14,000 in state and federal aid. Liquor Control Board Mr. Farrar moved that the Council adjourn and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Collins, attorney for Merrill Theatres, presented a request for a first and third class liquor license and for an entertainment permit. They want to open a "theme restaurant" in which people would eat and then see a movie. He noted they have added a small addition to the rear for a hallway to the theatre. There would be 54 fewer seats in the theatre. They would open at noon and close after the last movie. Ms. Picard noted that it had not been her understanding that drinks would be brought into the theatre area and she was not sure if the fire and police were aware of this fact when they gave their approvals. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Merrill Theatre request for a liquor license and entertainment permit be approved and that the approvals be signed upon received assurances from the City Manager that approvals have been granted by Fire and Police Departments. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Farrar moved that the Liquor Control Board be adjourned and reconvened as the City Council. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Metropolitan Planning Organization Mr. Farrar advised they are awaiting the State's execution of the contract, and for the Regional Planning Commission to execute the contract for services. He noted that the State is completely funding that portion of work they are going to do, so this will be a saving to the community. The next meeting will be March 16, at 3:30. PM Sign Resolution of Sympathy Mr. Farrar moved that the City Council sign the Resolution of Sympathy for the family of J. Everett Reed. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Other Business a) The City Manager was asked to draft a letter of thanks to the City Representatives for their efforts on the City's behalf. b) A letter of thanks will be sent to the Corrections Committee for their work, and that committee will be left intact. c) Mr. Minnich noted there is a bill in the Legislature giving collective bargaining rights to part=time employees. d) Mr. Peters noted the impact of state and federal budget cuts on local levels. Review Zoning Agenda Mr. Schuele raised the question of the variance request of the University Mall and stressed the issue of conservation zones. He noted they want to move a brook and put the new building up to the edge of the new brook location. They also would be encroaching into the conservation zone of the Interstate. It was agreed that the City Manager would draft a letter reminding the Zoning Board of the purpose of conservation zones as stated in the Master Plan. Mr. Farrar suggested that the Natural Resources Committee also write to the Zoning Board. Read Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 22, 1984 and Special Meeting of February 27, 1984. Ms. Lansing moved that the Minutes of February 22, 1984 be approved as written. Mr. Peters seconded with unanimous approval. Ms. Lansing moved that the Minutes of February 27, 1984 be approved as written. Mr. Peters seconded with unanimous consent. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Mr. Farrar moved that as there was no further business to come before the Council that the meeting be adjourned. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. TO: South Burlington City Council FROM: Sign Ordinance Review Committee RE: Report of Committee's Review and Conclusions DATE: December 4, 1983 I. Purpose: To make recommendations to the City Council about what changes, if any, should be made in the City's sign ordinance. 11. Process: The committee has reviewed documents pertinent to the history of the adoption and subsequent modification of the sign ordinance, interviewed South Burlington officials, conducted informal hearings, obtained consultation from the City's Attorney and prepared this report for the Council's consideration. 111. Issues: The one issue dominating all discussions was about the forty square foot size limitation on free-standing signs. Proposals were expressed for increasing the permitted size, for providing an appeal mechanism and for enacting "grandfathering" provisions for those free-standing signs which are nonconforming but preexist the enactment of the particular size limitation. These proposals were challenged by those who advocate keeping the sign ordinance in its current form. Two other items are mentioned although they were really more in the category of concerns rather than issues. The first concern was about the use by gasoline service stations of temporary, free-standing signs for posting prices and sales. .j r Page < ' The other concern was whether a provision should be added to the ordinance to enable outdoor signs for those individual a businesses which lack a facade due to being housed in a mall-like facility. IV. Conclusions: On the basis of this review and for the reasons listed below the committee recommends that no change be made in the forty square foot size limitation on free-standing signs; that no change be made to permit the unauthorized use of temporary free-standing signs; and that no change be made for those businesses lacking a facade due to being housed in a ma1 1-1 i ke faci 1 i ty. V. Discussion: 1. The committee believes that the present ordinance has three important qualities and that any proposed change to the ordinance which would put these values at risk should have compelling reasons. This ten year old ordinance is an expression of the community's standards. Its provisions have been observed during these years by new and replacement businesses. While one section of the ordinance was challenged and invalidated by the Court, in all other respects the ordinance is considered to be whole, legal and enforceable. 2. The committee discovered in the course of its review that a remedy already exists for those owners of free-standing signs that are nonconform.ing with respect to the forty square foot limitation but were existing on or before the date that size limitation was enacted. ' The City's Attorney confirmed that Page 3 whi 1 e owners of preexisting, nonconforming structures (free- standing signs) may not take actions which would extend or enlarge the degree of nonconformity, most courts under the circumstances of our present sign ordinance have permitted structural alterations, changes, replacements or reconstructions. The business representatives who attended the committee's hearings expressed a desire to replace their nonconforming signs with smaller, more energy efficient signs but were not in agreement with the forty square foot limitation. Of the total nonconforming signs due to size, there are fewer than twelve - that are considered to be "grossly" nonconforming. Most of the other nonconforming signs are at sixty square feet which was the City's standard at the time these signs were erected. There was general agreement in all of the committee's hearings that the trend for business signs both locally and nationally is toward smaller, less gaudy, more energy efficient signs. With this trend and the finding that the owners of nonconforming signs may replace them, the purpose of the sign ordinance will be better satisfied than by taking some action which would compel the owners to maintain their present, nonconforming signs. The committee's members were impressed by the divisiveness this ordinance, its creation and subsequent modification, has had on members of this community. While this solution is imposed upon upon the community, it provides the opportunity for business owners with nonconforming signs to provide leadership in this area which the commi ttee hopes will have a healing effect. Page * ; 3. The committee heard that enforcement of the ordinance had become lax during the recent litigation. Further, the 0 committee heard that such problems as the unauthorized use of free-standing signs become virtually unenforceable due to the nature of the judicial system's handling of this type violation. No specific proposal for changing the ordinance to correct this problem was presented. In fact, it was generally concluded that this problem will more likely respond to a community campaign rather than relying exclusively upon enforcement of the ordinance. 4. The committee heard that stores housed in mall-like facilities were believed to be disadvantaged by the ordinance in that businesses lacking a facade have no means to inform the passing shoppers of the stores' existence. This concern was being expressed in behalf of stores in the community's newest mall operation which is still in the early phase of'establishing its identity in the greater Burlington area. No specific proposal for changing the ordinance to correct this problem was presented. The committee concluded that stores which choose to locate in a mall-1 i ke facility are exercising a business judgement which one could presume has advantages over b,eing located in an individual facility with a facade. Page 5 1 I. Exhibits: The following exhibits listed in chronological order are being furnished as background information supplementary to this report. 10/26/83 - Survey of Chittenden County sign ordinances. 10/27/83 - Sign-in sheet for committee's meeting on this date. 11/03/83 - Sign-in sheet for committee's meeting on this date. 11/03/83 - Letter from John B. Dinklage. 11/08/83 - Letter from Robert L. Walsh. 11/10/83 - Sign-in sheet for committee's meeting on this date. 11/10/83 - Memorandum from Gregory L. Premo. 11/10/83 - Letter and information from H. Allan Marlow. 11/10/83 - Copy of WALL STREET JOURNAL article. 11/22/83 - Memorandum from Richard A. Spokes, Esq. VII. Closing: The committee makes no recommendations for substantive changes in the ordinance but that is not to preclude making changes of a "housekeeping" nature. In Exhibit J for example, Richard Spokes' I suggestions in his section V and concluding paragraph may be very constructive modifications which merit Council's consideration. The committee takes this opportunity to express its appreciation to Dick Ward for his assistance to the committee's operation. We have appreciated this chance to serve South Burlington and hope the results of our efforts will be both clear and useful. We recommend that the Council accept this report for study and take action to disolve the Sign Ordinance Review Committee. Donald F. Graf David A. Miller MEMORANDUM 'r0 : South Burlington City Council FROM: Councilman Paul A. Farrar RE : Charter Change DATE: March 2, 1984 Section 1902. POWERS AND DUTIES .o be DELETE (a) At least every five years the department shall review,or causc 'eviewed, jtheir appraisals of all real property in the city which is subject to taxation and conduct a reappraisal of all such properties when necessary to conform their appraisals to the standards for appraising established by the laws of the State. AND INSERT (a) The assessor shall divide the real property of the city into at least nine (9) and nor more than twenty (20) classes of property. The property in each class shall be siiilar in type, i.e. commercial, industrial undeveloped land, undeveloped lots business; industrial, undeveloped lots residential, residential single family, residential multi-family, etc. The assessor shall appraise at least 10% of the lots in each of the classes each year, and adjust the value of each piece of property so appraised to 100% of the appraised value. The average percentage change in the value of each class of property shall be used to adjust value of the remaining property in each class of property. In determining the adjustment percentage the increase or decrease in the value of a piece of property which is caused by structural modifications or new construction shall be removed from the factor used to determine the average change in the value of the class in question. (b) In selecting the property to be assessed in each class the assessor shall insure that each piece of property in the city shall be appraised at least every twelve (12) years. ~ Section 1309.1 DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET LIMITATIONS DELETE (a) If the anticipated Grand List is less than the Grand List for the current year, the anticipated tax rate for operations shall not exceed the tax rate for operations for the current fiscal year. (b) If the anticipated Grand List exceeds the Grand List for the current fiscal year by less than 5%, the percentage increase in the tax rate for operations shall not exceed the percentage increase in the Grand List. (c) If (a) and (b) are not applicable, the anticipated tax rate for operations shall not exceed the tax rate for operations for the current fiscal year plus 5% of the current rate for operations. MEMORANDUM Charter Change March 2, 1984 * * 4 page 2 * -. -- There shall be two limitations, neither of which shall be exceeded: ADD - (a) The anticipated tax rate for operations shall not exceed the tax rate for operations for the current fiscal year (b) These changes shall take effect for the Grand List and for the budget which shall take (c) The sections of this amendment are non-seperatable if one section is declared null and void by either the Legislature or the Courts the entire amendment shall be void and the previously adopted language shall be retained.